Imbalance of power

Other related coverage

The upper house is in danger of being abused to pursue
personal ambitions.

IN THE United States it's euphemistically called "earmarking".
Sounds innocuous, but the practice  more commonly known as
pork barrelling  has spread through the American political
system like Patterson's Curse and is proving almost as difficult to
eradicate.

Here, the weeds are just starting to creep up through the
cracks.

The term relates to the juicy wads of cash that members of the
US Congress insist on nailing to unrelated bills in exchange for
votes.

A $US410 billion ($A596 billion) "omnibus bill" voted on earlier
this month to keep the US Administration in cash until September 30
was literally festooned with thousands of taxpayer-funded
appropriations, all designed to boost the political standing of
individual legislators in specific areas.

The practice has become so insidious that US President Barack
Obama has promised a crackdown. Signing up to the latest
"imperfect" piece of legislative sludge to avoid a fight with
Congress, Obama declared: "This piece of legislation must mark an
end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era
of responsibility and accountability that the American people have
every right to expect and demand."

Thank God for the Westminster system, which protects the
Australian people from such parliamentary shenanigans.

In our system, government is formed by a majority in the House
of Representatives  aka the people's house  which also
creates laws to bring policy to life.

The Senate's widely accepted role is to review and amend
legislation, to make sure money is spent as intended, and to
represent the states' interests in equal measure.

Unlike the US Congress, which is a law unto itself with
legislative clout equal to the president's, the Australian Senate
explicitly has no power to appropriate money. It all gets a bit
blurry at times but, theoretically, it is not supposed to write
policy or formulate budgets. Case closed.

Or is it? In recent weeks, Australia's upper house has become so
bizarre and bogged in the politics of personality it seems in
danger of veering towards the US system, where the individual
interests of specific legislators are frequently placed ahead of
the general interest.

You have to wonder if the "old way" of doing business in the US
parliament referred to by Obama isn't fast becoming the "new way"
in the Australian Senate.

A quick recap of recent events. Last month, the Government's $42
billion economic stimulus package hung in the balance. The
Opposition dealt itself out by refusing to support the bill at the
outset. That meant the fate of the package hinged on the collective
votes of the five Greens, Family First's Steve Fielding and South
Australian Independent Nick Xenophon.

Fielding was sulkily demanding the Government implement his own
job creation plan, but eventually caved after being thrown a small
bone in the form of a trial project.

But it was Xenophon who emerged from the shadows to trump
Fielding, extracting a bucket of cash for the Murray-Darling by
using his balance of power position to initially derail the
bill.

It was a masterful manoeuvre, allowing the cool-headed Xenophon
to bask in the limelight and pose as an environmental warrior
before his South Australian constituents. There may be nothing
wrong with extra cash for the river system, but whether it should
have been linked to a completely unrelated $42 billion package
designed to keep the economy afloat is at the very least
questionable.

As former Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja pointed out
recently, what if Xenophon had chosen another issue on which to
cross-trade, such as pursuing a moral position? The Tasmanian
Independent Brian Harradine made a specialty of that during the
Howard years. And how does the voting public feel about a massive
economic package being held to ransom by a single issue?

Fielding, probably bruised by the whole episode, would not be
outdone a second time, siding with the Opposition to help derail
laws forcing disclosure of political donations of $1000 or more,
compared to the current threshold of $10,900. Of all things.

The obstructionism reached a crescendo last week when he also
helped thwart the Government's 70 per cent alcopop tax increase
because it refused to yield to his demands for a ban on alcohol
advertising during sport programs in family viewing hours, despite
other significant concessions to tackle binge drinking. Of all
things.

The government is now facing the ludicrous prospect of returning
to distillers around $290 million worth of tax revenue already
collected, leaving a $1.6 billion hole in the budget over four
years. It would be comedy if it were not so serious.

It now seems Fielding and Xenophon are locked in a bizarre state
of permanent competition, with each jostling for public attention
by threatening to oppose just about every major piece of
legislation that crosses their desks.

The contest came to a head on Wednesday, when both paraded
around the chamber during a secret ballot for a spot on the
Senate's inquiry into the emissions trading scheme. (Xenophon
won.)

The Greens, in contrast, are personifying responsibility. The
Government's new industrial relations laws abolishing WorkChoices
only narrowly passed at the last minute, but its promised emissions
trading scheme  one of its most important legislative
priorities  looks set to run into a legislative wall.
Fielding, in particular, has been reluctant or unable to wield his
power transparently by introducing amendments to argue a case
through parliamentary debate.

Instead, he seems intent on demanding backroom deals. This is
exactly the type of thing that Obama is struggling to eradicate in
the US.

The worry is that the Senate is in danger of being used 
or perhaps abused  to pursue the personal ambitions of
senators who have found themselves in key balance of power
positions.

The balance of power may bring power, but doesn't it also bring
responsibility? And isn't their responsibility to respect a
mandated government, rather than what they consider to be their own
mandate?

Although Labor doesn't yet have the necessary ammunition for a
double dissolution (two successive rejections in the Senate of a
bill passed twice in the lower house), it remains a growing
possibility as long as the shenanigans continue.

Other related coverage

1237526396751-theage.com.auhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/imbalance-of-power/2009/03/21/1237526396751.htmltheage.com.auThe Age2009-03-22Imbalance of powerJosh GordonOpinionhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/upper-house-obstruction-will-invite-early-poll/2009/03/18/1237054902925.htmlUpper house obstruction will invite early polltext/html-document